Kaizero Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 They get an increase from 4.5 to 6. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. Eh? If anything it increases their chances, albeit for a shared hosting. Considering there are only a handful of countries who could single-handedly host a 48-team World Cup, it's almost guaranteed that they're going to start shooting for regionally-held tournaments (Belgium-Netherlands, South Korea-Japan, Scandinavia, etc.) A North America-hosted tournament split between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada is sure to happen, it's already been on the table for years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Fox will ensure it at least part happens in 2026 unless China pays FIFA all the money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Having 48 countries in the WC Finals is ridiculous - it dilutes the strength and appeal of the competition and Brian Glanville, formerly of the Times for many years, even thought it was crazy when it went to 32. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Using the current highest ranking teams as a qualifier the WC assuming no change aside from UEFA would be made up of: AFC: Iran, Korea, Japan, Saudi, Oz, Uzbekistan, UAE, China, CAF: Senegal, Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Dr. Congo, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Ghana CONCACAF: Costa Rica, Mexico, US, Panama, Haiti, Honduras, Curaçao (better ranked .5 AFC team) CONMEBOL: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, Peru OFC: NZ Curaçao and NZ being the lowest ranked. Curacao ffs. I do think 6 is a decent number for Conmebol. We want to at least keep the qualifiers somewhat competitive. There's basically only 8 teams there since Bolivia and Venezuela are horrendous. Maybe make it 7 to give one of them a slight chance of making it. That would also make it near impossible for Brazil to ever not qualify for a World Cup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Having 48 countries in the WC Finals is ridiculous - it dilutes the strength and appeal of the competition and Brian Glanville, formerly of the Times for many years, even thought it was crazy when it went to 32. Clearly wrong on that front. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 If they want to expand the competition worldwide then reducing teams from Europe and North and South America would be the best way of doing it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 If they want to expand the competition worldwide then reducing teams from Europe and North and South America would be the best way of doing it. Exactly. Make qualifying tougher for it rather than the procession it tends to be for Europe's elite. Not a chance anyone will have the balls to change it though. Too much self interest. Even the FA who didn't really believe in the expansion voted for it so not to be further ostracised. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 If they want to expand the competition worldwide then reducing teams from Europe and North and South America would be the best way of doing it. Exactly. Make qualifying tougher for it rather than the procession it tends to be for Europe's elite. Not a chance anyone will have the balls to change it though. Too much self interest. Even the FA who didn't really believe in the expansion voted for it so not to be further ostracised. that would involve risk lowering cash from france germanys etc tv markets if things go tits up for them in qualifying and FIFA can't have that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Exactly. There is no sporting merit as had been pretended. All financial but I think we all know that anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 If they want to expand the competition worldwide then reducing teams from Europe and North and South America would be the best way of doing it. Exactly. Make qualifying tougher for it rather than the procession it tends to be for Europe's elite. Not a chance anyone will have the balls to change it though. Too much self interest. Even the FA who didn't really believe in the expansion voted for it so not to be further ostracised. that would involve risk lowering cash from france germanys etc tv markets if things go tits up for them in qualifying and FIFA can't have that. The money from those markets will dwarf from what they'll get in the far east soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 We're going to the World Cup! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistle17 Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 Looking forward to us topping a group of us, Bangladesh, and Chad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 Looking forward to us topping a group of us, Bangladesh, and Chad. As if you'd top that group Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 I wondered how the breakdown would work. Apparently this is the likely deal: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/10/48-team-world-cup-fifa-plan-2026 Europe - 16 teams (was 13) Africa - 9 (5) Asia - 8.5 (4.5) CONCACAF - 6.5 (3.5) South America 6 (4.5) Oceania 1 (0.5) Host Nation So that's great for New Zealand . Asia has 47 countries so that makes sense. Europe has 55 countries, of a generally high standard, and Africa has 56, so that makes sense too. It starts getting particularly sketchy when you look at CONCACAF and South America. South America has a grand total of ten countries, so 60% of them will qualify. No wonder they're up for it. That would be like 33 teams from Europe. CONCACAF has 41 members, but 31 of those are in the Caribbean. Eh, I don't really care. I would say the more the merrier, if I didn't loathe FIFA with a burning passion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 My favourite part of the WC is watching minnows in the group stages, so I'm all for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikky Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 My favourite part of the WC is watching minnows in the group stages, so I'm all for it. The expanded Euros were awful IMO - an expanded WC will be even worse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 My favourite part of the WC is watching minnows in the group stages, so I'm all for it. The expanded Euros were awful IMO - an expanded WC will be even worse I loved the expanded Euros. I wanted 32 teams in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikky Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 My favourite part of the WC is watching minnows in the group stages, so I'm all for it. The expanded Euros were awful IMO - an expanded WC will be even worse I loved the expanded Euros. I wanted 32 teams in it. Cool - I just loved the old 16 team format with 2 groups being groups of death Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikky Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 Plus I hated Portugal finishing 3rd in the group and winning the thing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 Europe - 16 teams (was 13) Africa - 9 (5) Asia - 8.5 (4.5) CONCACAF - 6.5 (3.5) South America 6 (4.5) Oceania 1 (0.5) Host Nation So that's great for New Zealand . Asia has 47 countries so that makes sense. Europe has 55 countries, of a generally high standard, and Africa has 56, so that makes sense too. It starts getting particularly sketchy when you look at CONCACAF and South America. South America has a grand total of ten countries, so 60% of them will qualify. No wonder they're up for it. That would be like 33 teams from Europe. CONCACAF has 41 members, but 31 of those are in the Caribbean. I think there needs to be a balance between size of continent and actual quality of the teams. IYAM South America could be given more than 6. For 2018, 6 South American teams would be: Brazil* Uruguay* Argentina* Colombia* Peru* Chile with Paraguay, Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela failing to make the cut. In Asia, 8.5 teams sees the following teams qualify: Iran* South Korea* Japan* Saudi Arabia* Australia* Syria Uzbekistan UAE Iraq/China to play qualifier CONCACAF: Mexico* Costa Rica* Panama* Honduras USA Trinidad and Tobago Guatamala/Haiti/Canada to play qualifier Not sure if you've worked out my point yet, but those additional North America/Asia teams that could get in? All fucking shite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 Oh I know, but I can live with that to make it more of a "World" cup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 My favourite part of the WC is watching minnows in the group stages, so I'm all for it. The expanded Euros were awful IMO - an expanded WC will be even worse I loved the expanded Euros. I wanted 32 teams in it. Cool - I just loved the old 16 team format with 2 groups being groups of death I hate how three teams can advance from a group, hence why I'd rather have 32 than 24. But again, I'm a sucker for watching minnows on a major stage. I feel like the majority of people are not Basically why I'd much rather have 64 teams in a World Cup than 48. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 Oh I know, but I can live with that to make it more of a "World" cup. My issue is that we'll have groups like: Germany, Chile, UAE, where both Germany and Chile will obliterate UAE and effectively qualify from winning that single game. I'd almost be happier if they set out a slow roll-out plan. Like those numbers are the end-game. So right now we marginally increase Asia/COMBEBNEBAL numbers, and they'll slowly increase over the years. So by World Cup 2142, Haiti can make the World Cup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now